Lizardking - Get This One!!!

Lizardking and other advisors, get this. About three weeks ago, I sent your form validation letter to a collection agency (Carter-Jones) for a $325 account. Carter-Jones represents another collection agency which was unsuccessful in originally collecting the $325 from me. Today I received Carter-Jones' written response. Here it is:

"Dear Mr. XXX:

This letter is being sent to you in response to your letter dated April 16, 2001. We are in the process of getting an itemized statement from our client; this could take up to six months before we have the item. As soon as I receive these dcouments I will forard them to you. Should you have any questions in regards to this matter, please don't hesitate to call.

Sincerely, Sherrie G."

SIX MONTHS??? Are they kidding me? What happened to the thirty day response requirement?
Is this a hoot, or what?

So, at this point, what would be the best thing for me to do? Wait the thirty days out, and then send them a follow-up letter telling them they can't now collect from me? Or should I go ahead and call them right now and tell them that? While this account is not presently on any of my credit reports (but is on ChexSystems since it was a balance due from an overdrafted checking account), should I also demand that they not report it to any of the bureaus and that they remove it from ChexSystems? What do you think? Appreciate your advice, and that of anyone else who is reading this. Thanks in advance for your replies.

Send the next follow up letter once 30 days hits, then also make sure you are disputing with the CRA at the same time, whether it's the big 3 or Chex. I would also at least either have them notify the CRAs and reflect that you are currently disputing or have them completely remove it. Here is LK's 2nd letter:

---

Creditor
address
city st zip

Re: Acct # 0000 0000 0000 0000

To Whom It May Concern:

As I have not heard back from you in over 60 days, regarding my demand for proof, since my notice of dispute dated December 5, 2000 and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists.

In a good faith effort to resolve this matter amicably, I restate my demand for proof of the debt, specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature, as well as proof of your authority in this matter. Absent such proof, you must terminate this collection action and correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine.

For the record, I state again that as I have no account with you, nor am I your customer, nor have I entered into a contract with you, I must ask for the following information:

1) Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692 (e) and 15 USC 1692 (f) in this alleged matter.
2) What is your authorization of law for your collection of information?
3) What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt?
4) Please evidence your authorization to do business or operate in the state of Florida.
5) Please evidence proof of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature.

You have 15 days from receipt of this notice to respond. Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, will work as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and will entitle me to presume that you sent your letter(s) in error, and that this matter is permanently closed.

Your continued silence is unacceptable. Either provide the proof or correct the record to remove the invalid debt from my credit files with the three primary credit-reporting agencies. You are currently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Failure to respond within 15 days of receipt of this registered letter (with return receipt) will begin my small claims action against your company. I will be seeking $5,000 in damages for the following:

After obtaining the judgment against your company, I will obtain a Writ of Execution from the Sheriffâ??s office in your county and I will begin the process of attaching property or funds to satisfy the judgment.

For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should any further action be necessary. This is a request for information only, and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.

This letter is being sent to you in response to your letter dated April 16, 2001. We are in the process of getting an itemized statement from our client; this could take up to six months before we have the item. As soon as I receive these dcouments I will forard

This has got to be a new collection agency tactic (or perhaps an old one) I recently got the same response. What do you think the odds of them getting back with you in six months? I say zilch. zero, not a chance. Then again this is something that bewilders me anyways. If the collection agency does what the FDCPA says in reference to validation, then all they are required to do is validate is supply the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt. I dont see where its says that they must do anything more. If there original letter supplies this info, then what is their to actually validate. I would suppose the courts would require more, but where does it say it under the law. I have posted this question in a similiar form on another thread and I am hoping someone can clear this up for me.

Originally posted by godaddyo This letter is being sent to you in response to your letter dated April 16, 2001. We are in the process of getting an itemized statement from our client; this could take up to six months before we have the item. As soon as I receive these dcouments I will forard

Originally posted by chriscraft
(but is on ChexSystems since it was a balance due from an overdrafted checking account),

should I also demand that they not report it to any of the bureaus and that they remove it from ChexSystems? What do you think? Appreciate your advice, and that of anyone else who is reading this. Thanks in advance for your replies.

Originally posted by lbrown59 If the collection agency does what the FDCPA says in reference to validation, then all they are required to do is validate is supply the name of the creditor and the amount of the debt.

Click to expand...

the above concerns only verification not validation.

The 2 words are not one and the same . [/B][/QUOTE]

Ibrown59,

Are we reading the same FDCPA And FCRA? Under the FCRA, the CRA's are only required to verify there members information. The verification process goes like this for a CRA : 1)The consumer asks the CRA to investigate 2)THe CRA communicates with the member asking if the debt exists,3)The member is only oblitgated to tell them ,the name of the company, the amount and who they are speaking to and there telephone #. CiThe company or person reporting does not have to supply actual proof, there word is all that is necessary or a document stating the above.

The Validation process under the FDCPA goes like this: 1) Consumer asks for validation. 2)Collecton agency is supposed to provide the name of the creditor and the amount owed. The must supply this proof within 5 days of request, unless the debt has already been paid or if it is already stated in the original letter. No where in the law does it actually say that they must send you something with your signature on it. Of course a court of law would want more proof of debt than a computer printout. I realize that but the FCDPA or FCRA do not require them to. Unless I am reading a different version. There is no law that says that they must supply you with these proofs. But, guess I really am starting to get the idea of asking for as much as you can get in an intelligent fashion in order to get what you want, while somewhat intimidating them at the same time.Your point is well taken.

I agree that 6 months is excessive, but obviousily this is a ploy to elude.

Here is fdcpa validation

Â§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

Originally posted by godaddyo I agree that 6 months is excessive, but obviousily this is a ploy to elude.

Here is fdcpa validation

Â§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

((3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

I don't know much about Chexsystems, but I assume that they operate pretty much the same as Telecheck.

I think that these people all claim they are not debt collectors nor Credit Reporting Agencies and are therefore not subject to the FDCPA.

Telecheck does not make any attempt to collect any funds for merchants. They never directly contact the consumer for any reason. They never demand payment of any money or that a bad check be paid. All they do is have an agreement with their customers that they will guarantee payment of a check if their customer will follow certain rules which are that their customer will call them in the event that a prospective check writer tries to purchase using a check. They then tell the merchant to either accept or don't accept the check. Or they tell the bank to open an account or don't open an account.

Then the consumer must contact Chexsystems or Telecheck to find out why they were denied. Chexsystems tells the customer that they have a bad check and must pay it plus heavy collection fees in order to get their record cleaned
up.

They claim that since they never contact the customer nor make any reports to credit bureaus, only to their members, they are not subject to FCRA or FDCPA and don't have to obey those rules.

These are my impressions. I ask if I am right or wrong, and am not attempting to proclaim myself as any expert here.

Originally posted by bbauer
â?¦
They claim that since they never contact the customer nor make any reports to credit bureaus, only to their members, they are not subject to FCRA or FDCPA and don't have to obey those rules.
â?¦not attempting to proclaim myself as any expert here.

Click to expand...

Bil:
Please, let me educate youâ?¦ On July 8, 1997 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (in Charles vs. Checkrite) in agreement with the 7th Circuit in Bass vs. Stolper et al; that a returned check collector is covered by provisions of FDCPA, and must therefore comply with the Act. Which begs the questionâ?¦

Where did you get the information that, â??â?¦since they never contact the customer nor make any reports to credit bureaus, only to their members, they are not subject to FCRA or FDCPAâ?¦â? or is this your own opinion (feeling on the matter)?

I was just stated what I had heard somewhere, not what I knew as a matter of fact. I have no idea where I heard what I posted.

As I said in the first place, I was asking for information from someone such as yourself who obviously knew what they were talking about on the subject. Looks to me like you fit that description in this instance.

So....I am wondering now, what are the CAs supposed to provide you with if you dispute the debt and ask for validation/ verification??? Is it a copy of your original contract or some other form of proof or just a name and address and amount owed?

Originally posted by LoFico So....I am wondering now, what are the CAs supposed to provide you with if you dispute the debt and ask for validation/ verification??? Is it a copy of your original contract or some other form of proof or just a name and address and amount owed?